In Birmingham it is common to see women shrouded in black

My sister has worn a face veil for six years. She lives in Birmingham, where it is common to see women shrouded in black, however the sight is more unusual in Southampton, where my parents live and where, at the weekend, my sister was called “a ninja woman”.

It’s common in Birmingham to see women shrouded in black, is it – well how appalling. You might as well say it’s common to see black people in chains in Liverpool. You might as well say it’s common to see Jews wearing yellow stars in Manchester. You might as well say it’s common to see gay people wearing pink banners with ‘Dangerous Degenerate’ printed on them. How bizarre and depressing and stomach-turning to see a Guardian columnist so breezily reporting such a squalid fact. Even worse to see her go on to tell a righteously indignant story about it.

My sister called him “a lying bigot”, which is all she could muster on a Sunday afternoon in Primark, en route to Clark’s to have her children fitted for new shoes, but she delivered it rather splendidly, to the bemusement of shoppers who, if they hadn’t noticed her before, suddenly found her rather interesting.

She’s trying to do two things at once here, Riazat Butt is, and they pull against each other. She’s trying to have it both ways, and that’s irritating. On the one hand her sister’s decision to wear a piece of black cloth over her face is perfectly normal and ordinary and no big deal, on the other hand it’s a brave and splendid and ‘interesting’ thing to do. On the one hand her sister is rebellious and special and cool, on the other hand she’s entirely average and familiar and like everyone else, shopping at Primark and Clark’s and buying shoes for her children. Well which is it? If she wants to play the Primark and Clark’s card, then it’s a mistake to wear a black cloth on her face. If she wants to wear a black cloth on her face, she can’t pretend she’s merely acting like everyone else in the world. I don’t think people necessarily should act like everyone else in the world. But I also recognize that some kinds of not acting like everyone else in the world are going to attract stares, and even comments. Calling someone a ninja woman is rude – but then dressing up like a ninja woman is also rude, and worse than rude.

She always made a point, she said, of walking up to people and asking them why they had called her names. The response was either silence or denial…”People never say things to your face.”

As Allen Esterson said when he alerted me to this piece, that’s quite a good unconscious joke.

My sister wears a face veil because it is something she wants to do. She knows not all Muslim women feel the same and she is not on a mission to force others to adopt the same dress code as her. She is not breaking the law. She is, as she sees it, minding her own business, being a mother and bringing up her children.

Being a mother and bringing up her children…to do what? To think that women are so obscene and filthy and distracting to the people who really matter in the world that they have to cover up everything including their faces? I’m not impressed.

49 Responses to “In Birmingham it is common to see women shrouded in black”

Oh, yes. I live there. It always amuses my girlfriend and I when we see these black sheeted figures browsing in the underwear sections of clothes shops, picking up skimpy bras, thongs, and other kuffar items of lust and evil. Presumably, their owners – sorry, husbands – want them dressed in black-out curtains in town but once back at home they expect a full Playboy mansion experience…

Bad analogy. Jews have never freely chosen to wear stars, nor have black people ever freely chosen to wear veils.

I hate the official symbolism of the veil as much as anyone. But not all Muslim women who veil do so because they think they’re “obscene and filthy.” They often have other reasons, which are not mine or yours to make assumptions about, and which they do not have any obligation to explain to anyone, since their clothing is their business.

And why on earth is dressing up “like a ninja woman” rude? Sure, it’ll attract comments–from useless busybodies who need to learn to mind their own business. That’s their problem, not hers. And what on earth is inconsistent about playing the “Primark and Clark” card while wearing niqab? Because she’s like Westerners in that one respect, she’s a hypocrite if she’s not like Westerners in every single other respect?

Jenavir is right when s/he states: ‘not all Muslim women who veil do so because they think they’re “obscene and filthy.” They often have other reasons’; although ‘which are not mine or yours to make assumptions about’ is false.

The primary reason why Western Muslim women (especially those born and raised in the West) wear the veil is as a symbol of their allegiance to political Islam, and as a visible statement of rejection of liberal modernity. The veil is not compulsory for women in Islam, so they are making a specific statement by wearing it – a statement of rejection and separation.

Of course Jews have never freely chosen to wear stars, and of course nor have black people ever freely chosen to wear chains – but that’s the point. It would be very odd if they did choose to wear them, and it’s very odd that Muslim women choose to wear the niqab, because it is a degrading symbol of inferiority just as the yellow star is and as slave chains are.

I know all that blah blah blah about why they do it, and it doesn’t interest me. If they’re too thick to realize that they are “freely choosing” to wear a degrading symbol of inferiority, that’s too bad for them.

It’s not entirely true that their clothing is their business. Clothing makes a public statement when worn in public. Nazi uniforms, for instance, cause raised eyebrows; in some contexts they would cause more than that. It’s very easy to just say X’s clothing is X’s business, but it’s not always that simple. A white sheet. A Confederate uniform. A Playboy bunny outfit. A Hitler face mask.

I know ‘not all Muslim women who veil do so because they think they’re “obscene and filthy”,’ but again, that’s the point: that’s what the niqab is about whether they think so or not. You can’t wear a piece of clothing that has a particular meaning in public and not expect people to read that meaning. You also can’t wear it around your children without expecting them to pick up the message it does indeed send.

Oh, my gosh. This could be a case of fools rush in where angels fear to tread, but here goes. I think this is a far more complicated issue than some, as it raises questions of people’s freedom to wear what they like, why some women wear the niquab, and all sorts of like ramifications.

I’m with Jenavir that Ophelia’s comparison with Jews wearing the yellow star is inappropriate. I’m closer to Edmund’s view, except that I don’t think the wearing of the niqab *necessarily* is a symbol of allegiance to political Islam. Of course we then get caught up in what is meant by “political” in this context, but I’m trying to see it from the position of the women in question. I think a number of young Muslims (I’ve no idea what proportion of wearers, of course) in Britain wear it as a sign of their devotion to their faith, and don’t necessarily see it in political terms – I reiterate, I’m putting it in the terms I think some of the younger Muslim women would express. I’m going here by what I’ve read and heard (on the radio) young Muslims, quite often women who have previously adopted a lifestyle closer to the British norm, say about their reasons for adopting the niqab.

What I think about it is somewhat independent of the different reasons why Muslims say they wear it. From a personal viewpoint, it makes me uncomfortable to be facing someone whose facial expressions I can’t see. I agree that, because it is beyond the norms of Western behaviour, it is a statement of separateness. I feel somewhat the same about Haredi Jews, but to my mind there is something about covering the face in public that takes it beyond that and makes it a public issue in a different category. For instance, if I walked into my local health centre and faced a locum who happened to be a male Haredi Jew, I would not feel the same as facing a locum whose face I could not see.

The case of blind people that is sometimes raised in this context (as they cannot see someone’s face) I don’t think is really relevant. For sighted people the norm is to be able to see a person’s facial expressions when communicating with her, and when we can’t it is understandable that we feel a sense that there is a (self-imposed) separation from that person.

Why is the comparison with Jews wearing the yellow star inappropriate? Is the idea that portable purdah is not really a statement of inferiority and subordination?

Well…can anyone imagine the situation reversed? Women walk freely to and fro in the world in jeans and T shirts and men creep around in tents with bags over their heads? Men who don’t wear bags over their heads, or who accidentally show a little ankle when reaching for their wallets, get beaten up or arrested?

It’s odd to call it a free choice when there are so many places in the world where women are violently forced to wear it. It’s a free choice to side with the oppressor – which is an ugly business.

P.S. I don’t dispute the idea that some young Muslim women wear it as a sign of devotion to their religion – but there again, it’s a very intrusive sign. Wearing a mask over the face is a very extreme thing to do for several reasons; it’s not like wearing a little hat or a little piece of jewelry. It is, if nothing else, highly conspicuous in places where it’s not (yet…) ‘normal’ – and that was the point of Clark’s and so on: it’s stupid to wear something conspicuous and then get righteously indignant when people notice. The sister wants the attention; if she didn’t she wouldn’t wear the niqab. She wants the attention and my guess is she wants the opportunity to get indignant, too.

But anyway, if young Muslim women wear it just as a sign of their religion without intending any political meaning, they’re making a mistake, because it’s saturated with political meaning.

Why is O.Bs analogy of the yellow star a bad analogy? the yellow star was mandated by a violent hate filled ideology the veil is also mandated by a violent hate filled ideology,the yellow star was mandated by the nazis but was manufactured by Jews and sold by Jews to other Jews so you could say it was freely worn in the same sence that the veil is freely worn by moslem women.

When I was a young tyke I would sometimes come home from the pub wearing a trafic cone as a hat,I found on those ocasions that people pointed at me and made comments like stupid drunken ass should I have taken offence?

Yes, there are places in the world where it’s not a free choice, but Birmingham isn’t one of those places.

Symbolism isn’t mathematical. Most symbols aren’t as clear-cut as a Jewish star or slave-chains (and the latter aren’t just “symbolic,” they also have a huge physical effect). The symbolism of the veil certainly isn’t that clear-cut, in part because it’s often freely chosen. It does not always mean either subjugation or allegiance to political Islam or separation from the rest of society. It is culturally and historically more complex than that. Yes, clothing makes a statement, but for the most part those statements aren’t very clear-cut and interpreting them is a subjective process.

I can’t imagine men being violently assaulted for not covering themselves, no, but I can certainly imagine a society whose custom it is to have the men cover themselves. In fact I don’t have to imagine–there are, and have been in the past, such societies. Traditional Arab societies often have both men and women swathed from head to toe.

And you know, I’m sure all of these women aren’t “too thick” to realize that some people will take niqab as a symbol of subjugation or political Islam. They know it, but the Muslim women I’ve spoken to consider the meaning it holds for them to be more important than whatever others will take it as, and they’re quite right. There’s nothing “intrusive” about covering yourself if you want. Noticeable, yes. Intrusive, no, because it is your body and your covering. Making comments to strangers about their clothing is intrusive. If you dress noticeably, you can’t complain about people noticing you. But this woman isn’t complaining about being noticed. She’s complaining about people making obnoxious comments to her, and rightly so. That’s a truly intrusive action, unlike anything she’s doing.

And no, wearing niqab isn’t like saying that all women should be covered up. It’s saying that this woman, for whatever reason, is more comfortable being covered up.

>Why is the comparison with Jews wearing the yellow star inappropriate? Is the idea that portable purdah is not really a statement of inferiority and subordination?<
Because the wearing of the yellow star was rather more than a statement of subordination. Jews were (obviously) forced to wear it, and the penalty for disobeying would have been a beating, imprisonment, and deportation to a concentration camp. That is simply not comparable to what appear to be numerous cases of young Muslim women who decided to wear the niqab after they had behaved close to Western norms, and could just as easily have continued doing so like many of their Muslim friends and acquaintances.
>Well…can anyone imagine the situation reversed? Women walk freely to and fro in the world in jeans and T shirts and men creep around in tents with bags over their heads?<
Perhaps it is not entirely relevant in this context, but I can certainly imagine places where *men* might well be assaulted for what they wear. A Jewish man in Hasidic garb would risk being insulted and quite possibly assaulted in some parts of the world. And I wouldn’t advise Hasidic Jewish men to walk around that part of east London known as “Little Bangladesh” – ironic, really, seeing that fifty years ago this was an area with a large Jewish population! (I recall that the Labour MP Oona King was pelted with eggs and vegetables by Muslim youths when she attended a memorial to mostly Jewish victims of a WW2 V2 rocket a few years ago, so an Hasidic Jew would certainly risk being targeted by young Muslim hooligans.)
> Why is O.Bs analogy of the yellow star a bad analogy? the yellow star was mandated by a violent hate filled ideology the veil is also mandated by a violent hate filled ideology, the yellow star was mandated by the nazis but was manufactured by Jews and sold by Jews to other Jews so you could say it was freely worn in the same sense that the veil is freely worn by moslem women.<
Sorry, Richard, but with that kind of stretch in the final part of your sentence you could make anything mean just about anything you wanted. Nor do I accept that Islam, for all the very strong criticisms I would make from my limited knowledge of it, and of the vile practice of Islam in some parts of the world, can be described as simply a “hate-filled ideology”, period, comparable to Nazism.
Ophelia:

> It’s odd to call it a free choice when there are so many places in the world where women are violently forced to wear it.<
That it’s not a free choice in many other places does not mean it *necessarily* is not a free choice in Britain. There are clearly many reasons why some Muslim women in Britain wear the niqab, and in many of these cases it seems clear it is not a free choice, but I find it hard to see how it is not a free choice in any reasonable meaning of that expression for the type of instances I mentioned above.

Allen if it is not a violent hate filled ideology what is it? the A.D.L document a small portion of that hate. http://www.adl.org/israel/alim_musa.asp I know I was over reaching a bit but I was trying to point out that to call the wearing of the veil a free choice is ludicrous and requires a giant stretch as well,the fact that some women willingly comply with the edicts of male bullies is not evidence of a freely made choice?

It is no good isolating reasons given by individual Muslims and then extrapolating from them in a general way. “I will ask my Muslim friends” always makes me laugh when my own friends doubt my understanding and criticism.

The point is, unless one is familiar with the texts and history one cannot trust the explanations of invidual adherents. One is expecting more than is reasonable when many of them have no idea why they are observing certain rites, strictures and practices beyond family or cultural traditions. This paticular situation of the woman in the shopping mall suggests an exception that may simply prove the rule. It also suggests intentional provocation by a woman looking for a fight.

The above regarding adherent ignorance holds true across the board. If you doubt this, bone-up on the theory of Transubstantiation then ask a Roman Catholic next to you in the pew why s/he believes that wafer being lifted from the altar has suddenly become the literal body of Jesus Christ or why that brown scapular around their neck will rescue them from Purgatory the Saturday after death – if they even know that detail.

I grew up with religious women (all my childhood and early adulthood – who were attired from head to toe – with a portion of their face showing only – in heavyweight black clothing – and it never failed to put a tremendous amount of fear and curiosity in me -the fear to this day still lives on.

It has also left an awful, indelible, abnormal and psychological effects on other inmates of mine- who, also, every day of their lives had to observe them.

They were the very epitome of death-like creatures.

But, yet again, when one considers it- these religious women did wait every day of their religious lives on death to arrive, and welcomed it with open? arms.

These brides of Christ were robed in gowns suitable for his eyes only. Just like the muslims

They were not of this world – but of the next only -and they waited patiently and fervently on their Christ to call him to his kingdom.

When I lived in Birmingham – I constantly saw black-veiled women carrying babies into cars with black-shaded windows. They scared the living daylight out of me.

These people – in the abnormal way they dress – just do not realise the panic they instill into people.

People find it hard to control themselves when in their midst, and as a result start making snide remarks.

Children in institutions, like Goldenbridge, just bottled up their fear of the religious who were all hidden away behind swishing black robes. So every now and again they could take no more of their weird dress-sense, so they went for the sacrosanct black veils and reefed them off the religious. There was hell to pay afterwards as it was considered a crime. Nonetheless, this was their only way of venting their spleens.

“or why that brown scapular around their neck will rescue them from Purgatory the Saturday after death”

What about the Brown Scapular? White Scapular? The Fivefold Scapular? Crikey, there is even the Feast of the Scapular. As well as the Carmelites/Benedictine Habit and Scapulars. We must not forget them – indeed.

“Yes, there are places in the world where it’s not a free choice, but Birmingham isn’t one of those places.”

Are you sure about that? Do you know much about it? Do you know anything about it?

I’m not saying the symbolism of the niqab is clear-cut; I am saying that you can’t strip out of it the fact that it is imposed by force in some places.

The fact that you can’t imagine men being violently assaulted for not covering themselves is important. Of course I realize that there are societies where it is the custom for men to ‘cover themselves,’ but the power imbalance is crucial. It can’t be treated as just some minor variation; it’s all-important.

“the Muslim women I’ve spoken to consider the meaning it holds for them to be more important than whatever others will take it as, and they’re quite right.”

Are they? Says who? I think they’re quite wrong. Of course, they’re ‘right’ from their own point of view – right in the sense that the meaning it holds for them is more important to them than whatever others will take it as – but that’s merely self-centered and oblivious. I could dress up in a white sheet and prance around saying the meaning it holds for me is more important than the way others take it, but I’d be wrong and selfish to do so.

I agree about the intrusiveness of making rude comments; I said that; I’m not defending the making of rude comments; but I am expressing strong skepticism and in fact disdain about the niqabista’s motivation and sense of outrage.

Yes wearing niqab does say that all women should be ‘covered up’ – your even putting it in that language gives the game away. I don’t consider myself ‘not covered up’ if I go outside without a black cloth over my face! It’s no good pretending all this stuff doesn’t send a message, because it damn well does.

I’m with you on this, Ophelia, but I wonder what you think about Islamic headscarves (as opposed to head-to-toe veiling)? I take it that the symbolism is roughly the same, but I don’t know enough about it to give a serious opinion. Thoughts?

Same thing. Women are beaten, arrested, imprisoned, given 80 lashes – 80 lashes – for letting a little hair show in Iran. The head to toe garments are worse, of course, and wearing a cloth over the face is an intolerable disabling custom, but the hijab is not benign.

Allen – agreed (with the bit that was addressed to what I said – which was just the last one). Many of the young women who wear it would of course repudiate that view – and I would repudiate their repudiation – and as you say, nothing would be resolved.

Basically I’m just disputing (or repudiating) Jenavir’s claim that none of this is anyone else’s business. I wish that were true, but it isn’t.

Allen: I would have thought it was clear that “extrapolating” from reasons given by individual Muslims in a general way was precisely what I was not doing. I was saying that from the accounts given by some young Muslim women I have read and heard I do not believe that one *can* generalise about *all* women in the UK who wear the niqab.

But that is not my point. I am saying one cannot generalize or extrapolate based on the ahistorical explanations of a minority of contemporary Muslim women whose defence may be based on ignorance, novel interpretation or simple dissembling. One may however, generalize based on the actual facts and how they have played themselves out historically. Indeed, one must.

Given the bizarrely non-stereotypical nature of the ninja comment I’d guess that this is an example of people feeling it acceptable to make comments about other people’s appearance in public, rather than an issue specific to Muslims.

If you talk to e.g. people with severe disfigurement they’ll tell you that people routinely point, laugh, or stare.

Yes, I do know that Birmingham laws don’t sanction beating people up for not wearing niqab. I feel very confident saying that.

I could dress up in a white sheet and prance around saying the meaning it holds for me is more important than the way others take it, but I’d be wrong and selfish to do so.

Not necessarily. That would depend on why you were wearing the white sheet: what sort of personal, familial or historical meaning would it have for you? I can’t think of any reason for your wearing a white sheet that would be remotely similar to the reasons young Muslim women have for wearing hijab or niqab.

Yes wearing niqab does say that all women should be ‘covered up’ – your even putting it in that language gives the game away.

Again, not really. I don’t think of “covered up” as meaning “appropriately dressed,” I think it literally means covered up, which I never am, because I never cover myself from head to toe. And you have not explained how one woman or even many women wearing niqab somehow says that all women must wear niqab. I can see how that argument might hold good in a Muslim-dominated country, where veiled women would be the majority and unveiled women would stand out and face possible scorn. But that same argument becomes extremely weak and unconvincing when you try to apply it to a country where unveiled women are in the majority. The same thing holds true for your point about men not being beaten for not wearing niqab: yes, there’s a huge power imbalance on a global scale. But it doesn’t follow from that that there must be a similar power imbalance in a Western country.

( Apart from the principle of trying to be as accurate as one can within one’s understanding, is this really the message that you would convey to those relatively moderate Muslims who are bravely attempting to drag Islam kicking and screaming through something like an equivalent of a “reformation” – that you dismiss them along with the Ayotollahs, etc, as effectively all the same, proponents of religious beliefs that are nothing but a hate-filled ideology) Allen I will take moderate moslems seriously when I see several thousand of them in London holding not in my name placards the next time there is another outrage in the name of islam. that said great answer.

Jenevair you seem to miss the point O.B raises about the message that this revolting garment carries in a free society,even if it is being worn freely by some moslem women it is because they are making a giant srew you statement to the majority population,, it is no different than marching round Golders Green in an S.S uniform or carying a confederate flag round in Atlanta. I hardly think it is just co incidence that these garments have become much more prolific post 9/11 7/7 ect.

Jenavir: “But that same argument becomes extremely weak and unconvincing when you try to apply it to a country where unveiled women are in the majority.”

I don’t think that the argument does become “extremely weak” for the simple reason that wearing these garments is such an ostentatious display of difference.

I might always wear something blue because I believe that that the Great Pajama God requires it of me BUT (unless I run about shouting it) no one else will know so my choice would have no overt implications for others.

The same can hold for other easily concealable religious symbols.

Once, however, such things are displayed in public as religious symbols they take on public and political implications and pose obvious problems for liberal societies.

The niqab (and hajib to some extent) is a special case because, religious requirements aside, it is difficult to see any good reason for wearing such disabling garb.

On 24 August on the BBC Radio 4 programme “Sunday”, Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra of the Muslim Council of Britain was asked about the tradition that it’s the father or close male relative who is the wali [guardian] who gives permission for the woman to marry.

He replied that “the attitude that many jurists have taken with regards to the conditions to the marriage is that if the [Sharia] law requires the woman to be represented by her male guardian, that is the law.”

>It doesn’t necessarily follow, but I think there is good evidence that a power balance (albeit by no means as great) does exist among a few ethnic-minority groups in the UK,…<
Obviously I meant to say “power imbalance”.

It is an empirical question, of course, and to a considerable extent when I post these N&Cs I’m assuming a certain amount of background knowledge about what’s going on in places like Birmingham (see Gina Khan’s diary in Articles for one source, and see myriad others in the News archive). I don’t present the evidence every time I write a post, I assume most readers (apart from brand new ones) are somewhat aware of it.

For the record: it is not common to see women shrouded in black in Birmingham, it is common to see such women in CERTAIN AREAS of Birmingham, places like Alum Rock, Washwood Heath, Small Heath which whites avoid like the plague if they can, and notably, the city centre. There are quite a few almost exclusively white pockets in Brum, the south west quarter is overwhelmingly white. Where I live I am in my native Worcestershire in five minutes without seeing a non-white, and then multi-culti land is but a memory. This Butt woman is simply extrapolating from her limited experience. I have an article somewhere, from one of the main papers, where a researcher asked Muslim children somewhere in inner-city Britain, what the percentage of Muslims in the population is, and the responses ranged from 50 to 80 percent. Muslims enter ordinary Britain only as someone who is passing through, and if they are aware that there is a Britain which is non-urban, it is when they travel the motorway from one Muslim enclave to another.

I have seen a veiled woman once in my part of south-west Brum, and she got back in the car sharpish, when she realised she had actually got out in a kaffir area.

>I have an article somewhere, from one of the main papers, where a researcher asked Muslim children somewhere in inner-city Britain, what the percentage of Muslims in the population is, and the responses ranged from 50 to 80 percent. Muslims enter ordinary Britain only as someone who is passing through, and if they are aware that there is a Britain which is non-urban, it is when they travel the motorway from one Muslim enclave to another.<
A bit of an over-generalisation…
I suspect you meant *such* (or some) Muslims enter ordinary Britain…

Actually, yes, you did, when you said that it was rude to wear niqab in the first place. If it’s rude to do something, it follows that one has an obligation not to do it.

You don’t know that. You keep saying things that you can’t know. You can’t know that ‘At worst, it’s acceptance of one’s own subjugation.’

Sure I can. At least, I can know it as much as I can know that the purpose of a Klansman’s white hood is to intimidate and threaten.

I don’t think we should insult people who wear it, but I do think we can argue that it’s a bad thing to wear.

This I agree with. It is none of the person on the street’s business to walk up and comment on anyone’s niqab, or otherwise single them out. But in forums for public debate we can offer opinions on niqab.

But there are ways and ways of arguing that niqab is bad. I don’t think criticizing a woman for self-righteousness and self-pity because she’s complaining about verbal abuse, and wants to be treated like everyone else despite wearing niqab, is the best way to go about it. I think it’s unlikely to persuade anyone except those already persuaded and carries the disturbing logical implication that niqab-wearers are somehow asking for it. You didn’t say in so many words that she was asking for it. But you did describe her harassers’ actions as “rude” while her actions are “worse than rude.” That is victim-blaming. If someone is “worse than rude,” why isn’t it perfectly okay to be rude to her, or even nasty to her?

I also think comparing niqab to yellow stars, while interesting, isn’t something that should be casually done. I think if you make a drastic comparison like that, the similarities and differences between those two symbols ought to be more fully fleshed out and explored for the sake of intellectual and political clarity. Of course this is a blog and is inherently off-the-cuff…but that’s an argument for not making such a drastic comparison using this format in the first place.

I don’t think she is a genuine victim. I don’t buy it. The story Butt tells smacks of something else. I think she’s playing at being a victim. I think her actions are worse than rude because of the implications I’ve talked about – but that still doesn’t make it okay to be rude to her. Why would it?

And don’t tell me I said something I did not say, merely because you think the thing I did not say follows from what I did say. That’s downright offensive – and that’s not a word I use lightly.

I don’t know what the truth is about women’s freedom or not in the wearing of shrouding clothing, but I find it deeply offensive. I am offended when I see a woman dressed from head to toe in black, wearing work boots, and walking a few feet behind her man (owner). This is deeply offensive to me. I have not made abusive comments, but I feel like doing so.

Why? Because when I see them walking about the streets of Canadian cities, I consider that they are putting the cause of women’s liberation back by about twenty years, and, depending on their influence, perhaps farther than that. I don’t think it should be permitted.

If I were to walk out on the street in a ski-mask at noon, in Halifax or Toronto, I would rightly be thought to be up to no good. I would rightly be expected to show my face. The same applies to women, but in this case, there are far more serious issues involved. They are not only hiding, they are being concealed, and they are being concealed for idiotic patriarchal fantasies that still seem to be the rule in majority Muslim jurisdictions. The intent, clearly, is that this is what things should be like here. Women who are not dressed like this are revealing too much flesh. They are inviting male attention. They are raw meat, as a helpful imam in Australia said some time ago.

This kind of thing does not bode well for Canadian democracy. It is allowing cultural idiocy to overrule the legtimate customs of this country, and not only customs, but basic laws. It simply should not be permitted. People who conceal themselves are up to no good, whether to their own harm or the harm of others. Perhaps we should not be rude to them and insult them, but they are a standing insult to all women who are not dressed like that, and it should be clear that those who claim to be victimised by abusive onlookers – what the hell do they expect, if they dress in black bags? – are not only victims themselves, and choose to make other women so. It is an implicit criticism of Canadian society and of those who do not share these patriarchal, sexist values. That is deeply offensive enough to rule it out. The hijab is bad enough. The head to toe bag is a monstrosity.

It is common to see such women in CERTAIN AREAS of Birmingham, places like:”

Sparkbrook and Sparkhill were two common places to see the veils when I was there in the mid-eighties.

“I am offended when I see a woman dressed from head to toe in black, wearing work boots, and walking a few feet behind her man (owner). This is deeply offensive to me. I have not made abusive comments, but I feel like doing so.”

Eric: I feel exactly the same as you do -it builds up in me a similar reaction to that of seeing a person on the street physically abusing a dog.

The link, by: Al-Muhajabah – which I put up @ 21:19:24 is really worth reading – as it gives readers, like me (from a converts’ religious/social perspective) tremendous insightful views of the veil.

One can, at least, from reading therein, their views, -deduce what is going on in their shrouded veiled minds.

The first time I saw, meaning, I really noticed a niqabi was in 1991, in rural Uttar Pradesh,India (south east asian niqabis at that time were a mere handful of cultists cloistered away in polygamous communes). This particular woman and her husband alighted from the bus we were all travelling in, at a dusty village stop. There was a straggly tree and some houses in the distance. The niqabi gracefully adjusted some garments, squatted down right in front of the bus (she didnt even think of going behind the tree!)and urinated. She didnt display any flesh at all, not even an ankle but I was gobsmacked by the incongruity of it all. Now I think about it, it seems she was totally convinced of her privacy and aloneness in her portable purdah/portaloo and the rest of us ceased to exist.

Since then, i have encountered more women in niqab in south east asia where it is a truly alien innovation (unlike northern india which does have a longer tradition of this). I hate the sight of a woman in one( but every one deserves basic civility and random verbal abuse on the streets is unacceptable,which is what Ophelia and everyone else has taken some pain to emphasise) and I think it more a proclamation of extreme and rather perverse sexual fixation than modesty. It is the obverse of the willing sub, naked but for her collar and other arbitrary restraints, flaunting her preferences on the streets (except that bdsm’ers actually dont and thankfully keep their kinks private).The niqab – where it hasnt a practical function or isnt coerced upon women – is slave wear and I figure quite a few of the willing niqabis have an exhibitionist streak and enjoy the sexual frisson they get from their garb.

Hanifa Deen, an Australian muslim author, describes a niqabi, she encountered in Sydney, in her book, Caravanserai.The woman is a young white convert, a former kingscross prostitute , deeply scarred by her childhood abuse,unstable relationships etc. Who actually finds the restrictions of Islam reassuring -clear boundaries and all that- but who is *ostentatiously* modest as she walks the streets of Lakemba with the uncovered writer. It was not just the niqab, the bemused author notes, but the exaggerated mannerisms of modesty like downcast eyes and nervous movements as she encounters men and inevitably draws their attention, that alert the author to the fact she may actually be flirting.She is on the prowl for muslim husband number 3 afterall.

I think her actions are worse than rude because of the implications I’ve talked about – but that still doesn’t make it okay to be rude to her. Why would it?

Why wouldn’t it? Do you really think it’s not okay to be rude to someone wearing a KKK-style white sheet? I think it’s not okay to be polite to such a person.

And don’t tell me I said something I did not say, merely because you think the thing I did not say follows from what I did say. That’s downright offensive – and that’s not a word I use lightly.

If you’re offended by it, I don’t think you should be. People do have an obligation not to be rude, and they certainly have an obligation not to be “worse than rude”. If you say an action is “worse than rude,” you are saying that they have an obligation not to do it. It doesn’t just follow from it–it’s tantamount to the same thing. Trying to draw a distinction between the two doesn’t even rise to the level of hair-splitting. You can’t dissociate yourself from the inevitable implications of what you say just because you don’t spell them out.

In your example, who were you contemplating directing the abusive comments at? Him or Her?

Separately, is it illegal to wear a ski mask on the streets of Toronto? That’s a bad example. Ski masks are associated with crime. How about a very densely netted bee-keepers hood? Would you demand to see their face? Or would you (probably wisely) choose not to engage with the eccentric?